Officials: 1 dead, 3 wounded in university shooting in Ariz.

a reply to: SuperFrog

This is a shooting that happened to be at a university, not a "University Shooting".

So now we get webcrawlers looking for keywords to tie together ends that just aren't there.

Score 1 for fear mongering and gore porn.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Vasa Croe

There are plenty research done, just tell what you are looking for.

Some of facts stated there, I've already posted here, but if you doubt something, please post question and we can see if we can find it or not.

Just for your info and your 'fact production' - sadly, I am from USA and sadly bullying like showed with your post is my reality.

Everyone remember this little stunt??

EDIT:

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So what is the key word there.....yes....PEOPLE. Fact 100% of violent acts are not committed by a gun.

I never said that the people had to have a mental illness, but I did say that 100% of violent acts are committed by PEOPLE.

The government does NOT block research at all, in fact they have even set up a Harvard funded program for it, which in itself is skewed because they use incorrect polling data and make claims of firearms experts when in reality they are researchers with no firearms experience.

There is plenty wrong and skewed with the data you cite. The sources I cited are from a program exactly like what gun control people are calling for in the US and it has been found, since 1996, that it does not work. It curbs no homicide or violence at all....it stayed the exact same and has since.....FACT.

You missing to see only elephant in room - key word in there is not people but - GUNS!

People without guns would not commit those crimes - or they would try but in less efficient way.

What happened in 1997 is fact, and that all your facts are fabricated by gun rights lobby.

The word GUNS isn't even in your highlighted text....

People without guns have already been proven to commit those acts....just google Chinese Mass stabbings and you can read all day long.

I could care less if mental illness is the answer or not, the FACT is a gun sitting on my table will do just that for the rest of it's existence until a person picks it up and uses it. You can rant until blue in the face and that will never change.

My sources link directly to the Australian Government on homicide rates. I am sure they would LOVED to have been able to claim less homicide after the gun regulation, but the FACTS show that the regulations did nothing to stem the violence.....as it has done nothing to stem violence in any other country that did the same.

You're in over your head in this argument with both legs knocked out from under you at this point....there is nothing showing that homicide rates decrease due to gun regulation. And please don't link another homicide figure that only shows gun homicide comparisons only.....that is just asinine.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

This is a shooting that happened to be at a university, not a "University Shooting".

So now we get webcrawlers looking for keywords to tie together ends that just aren't there.

Score 1 for fear mongering and gore porn.

Of course, the problem is that many people will just hear "school" and "shooting" and believe "another one happened".

This helps create the impression that these events are far more prevalent than they are.

It reminds me of one summer back in the eighties. There was a rather famous incident of a baby falling from a multi-story building. After this the local NY tabloids reported any story that was at all similar. Any time a baby fell from anything, it got reported in the tabloids. Or if a baby almost fell. Or if a baby could have fallen.

It gave the impression that we had an epidemic of babies falling from windows. Of course, the problem was no larger than it had ever been. This demonstrated to me how media focus can make problems seem much larger or widespread than they actually are.

a reply to: Vasa Croe



Right, and if you post that 100 times you might start really to believe... but facts as showed in my previous posts with research shows that guns are the problem.

Let's quickly evaluate this thread - first I post news about shooting on campus, first reply started misleading that it might be robbery, turns out it was not, both shooter and victims are students.

Then after another misleading that issue is mental health, we came to conclusion it is not a problem, as showed with research and evidence.

Then another misleading fact that people are to be blamed for using gun for its primary purpose, and more research by 2 different universities that show that actually more guns means more violence with guns (duh) we moved to new direction...

Second amendment, misinterpretation of words: 'well regulated militia' and with all evidence of government shutting down research regarding gun related violence we can conclude that today we have 'well unregulated militia' and we can conclude that we should start implementing 2nd amendment and start to 'regulate'.


Interesting article regarding second amendment: www.bloombergview.com...

Case closed, and sorry to burst your bubble, but this is based on facts...

So something like this does not happen:

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Right, and if you post that 100 times you might start really to believe... but facts as showed in my previous posts with research shows that guns are the problem.

Let's quickly evaluate this thread - first I post news about shooting on campus, first reply started misleading that it might be robbery, turns out it was not, both shooter and victims are students.

Then after another misleading that issue is mental health, we came to conclusion it is not a problem, as showed with research and evidence.

Then another misleading fact that people are to be blamed for using gun for its primary purpose, and more research by 2 different universities that show that actually more guns means more violence with guns (duh) we moved to new direction...

Second amendment, misinterpretation of words: 'well regulated militia' and with all evidence of government shutting down research regarding gun related violence we can conclude that today we have 'well unregulated militia' and we can conclude that we should start implementing 2nd amendment and start to 'regulate'.


Interesting article regarding second amendment: www.bloombergview.com...

Case close, and sorry to burst your bubble, but this is based on facts...

So something like this does not happen:

www.cnn.com...

You clearly have no concept of what "militia" meant to the Framers, or what "well regulated" meant to the Framers.

And therein lies the root of your problem.

Fact.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Right, and if you post that 100 times you might start really to believe... but facts as showed in my previous posts with research shows that guns are the problem.

Let's quickly evaluate this thread - first I post news about shooting on campus, first reply started misleading that it might be robbery, turns out it was not, both shooter and victims are students.

Then after another misleading that issue is mental health, we came to conclusion it is not a problem, as showed with research and evidence.

Then another misleading fact that people are to be blamed for using gun for its primary purpose, and more research by 2 different universities that show that actually more guns means more violence with guns (duh) we moved to new direction...

Second amendment, misinterpretation of words: 'well regulated militia' and with all evidence of government shutting down research regarding gun related violence we can conclude that today we have 'well unregulated militia' and we can conclude that we should start implementing 2nd amendment and start to 'regulate'.

Case close, and sorry to burst your bubble, but this is based on facts...

So something like this does not happen:

www.cnn.com...

If guns themselves were the problem and not the people then we should have at least one illegal shooting per gun in the US which is roughly 310 million non military . We have nothing even close, your "facts" are not facts. They are opinion you pawn off as facts when anyone with two functioning brain cells can see it's bs.

Also is your problem with overall gun death? If so 60% of gun death is suicide not homicide or accident so the focus to reduce overall numbers should be outreach to suicidal people. If your problem is homicide then focus should be inner cities, less desirable area's, and black market. These things get the publicity but not the overall numbers. It's why it's easy to say the anti extremist don't care about gun death as long as it stays in less desirable area's. When that happens no outrage.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
You clearly have no concept of what "militia" meant to the Framers, or what "well regulated" meant to the Framers.

And therein lies the root of your problem.

Fact.

Knowing that 4 of 9 supreme judged agree with me, that some ex judges not only agree, but have info about fraud... yep, I think I know bit more about our constitution then you...

Seems that you did not bother reading article at all... let me help you...

]A quick quiz: In what century did the Supreme Court first rule that people have an individual right to own guns? The answer is the 21st century. It was not until 2008 -- the year Barack Obama was elected president -- that the Court initially ruled that the Constitution imposes serious barriers to gun control. And it did so only by a narrow 5-4 margin.

To understand the magnitude of that change, go back to 1991, when Chief Justice Warren Burger, then retired, agreed to an interview on national television. Burger was a strong conservative, admired on the right, and specifically chosen by President Richard Nixon to combat what he saw as the Supreme Court's left-wing activism.

Despite his conservative bona fides, Burger didn't believe the Constitution created an individual right to possess guns. On the contrary, he said the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In the next year, he proclaimed that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all."

Burger was speaking for the overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." In Burger’s view, the opening reference to a “well regulated Militia” suggests that the Second Amendment was meant to forbid the national government from abolishing state militias.

That view, which contrasts so sharply with the current interpretation, has a long history. In 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court captured a widespread understanding in announcing that the real object of the right to keep and bear arms "is the defense of the public" and so refers to "military use." It follows that a hunter "might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms."

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court’s principal ruling came in 1939. In rejecting a challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which banned possession of sawed-off shotguns, the court unanimously ruled that the ban didn't violate the Second Amendment.

Source stated in previous post.

I think we can all agree that we see results of fraud on this topic... with stars... interesting...

At least we are on conspiracy site... and this being the case... I am not surprised but bit sadden that public does not care about this issues until their life is at stake...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Second amendment, misinterpretation of words: 'well regulated militia' and with all evidence of government shutting down research regarding gun related violence we can conclude that today we have 'well unregulated militia' and we can conclude that we should start implementing 2nd amendment and start to 'regulate'.

To paraphrase a great fictional character "You keep using that word [misinterpretation]. I do not think it means what you think it means." (Inigo Montoya - The Princess Bride)

It's very well established that the words "well-regulated" had a different meaning during the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was "well-regulated" was calibrated correctly and functioning as expected.

I'll agree on one point for sure, the shut down of any research on gun violence isn't a good thing. Violence, in all it's forms needs to be studied, because if you don't understand the root cause, you won't ever figure out a solution.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

This is a shooting that happened to be at a university, not a "University Shooting".

So now we get webcrawlers looking for keywords to tie together ends that just aren't there.

Score 1 for fear mongering and gore porn.

You just don't make sense...

Shooting was at uni, both shooter and victims are students... and it's not university shooting??

Seriously?

What in your opinion should be called university shooting??? Please enlighten us.

a reply to: SuperFrog

"Maybe if you repeat it often enough you'll start to believe it."

That works both ways.

You're not advancing any new arguments. You're regurgitating the same crap over and over, slapping "fact" in the middle of it, and calling it a win.

SCOTUS has consistently upheld the individual right to bear arms. Not the collective, the individual. Four justices agreed with you. Terrific. Five justices didn't. Over 200 years of case law don't agree with you either. I actually read the opinions put out after the Heller case, so I don't need your article to know what they are. You're ignoring the FACT that one of the two dissenting opinions didn't even argue about an individual right to bear arms, it argued that the DC law on storage of firearms didn't violate the second amendment.

Fact.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Shamrock6
You clearly have no concept of what "militia" meant to the Framers, or what "well regulated" meant to the Framers.

And therein lies the root of your problem.

Fact.

Knowing that 4 of 9 supreme judged agree with me, that some ex judges not only agree, but have info about fraud... yep, I think I know bit more about our constitution then you...

Seems that you did not bother reading article at all... let me help you...

]A quick quiz: In what century did the Supreme Court first rule that people have an individual right to own guns? The answer is the 21st century. It was not until 2008 -- the year Barack Obama was elected president -- that the Court initially ruled that the Constitution imposes serious barriers to gun control. And it did so only by a narrow 5-4 margin.

To understand the magnitude of that change, go back to 1991, when Chief Justice Warren Burger, then retired, agreed to an interview on national television. Burger was a strong conservative, admired on the right, and specifically chosen by President Richard Nixon to combat what he saw as the Supreme Court's left-wing activism.

Despite his conservative bona fides, Burger didn't believe the Constitution created an individual right to possess guns. On the contrary, he said the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word 'fraud' -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In the next year, he proclaimed that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all."

Burger was speaking for the overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." In Burger’s view, the opening reference to a “well regulated Militia” suggests that the Second Amendment was meant to forbid the national government from abolishing state militias.

That view, which contrasts so sharply with the current interpretation, has a long history. In 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court captured a widespread understanding in announcing that the real object of the right to keep and bear arms "is the defense of the public" and so refers to "military use." It follows that a hunter "might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms."

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court’s principal ruling came in 1939. In rejecting a challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which banned possession of sawed-off shotguns, the court unanimously ruled that the ban didn't violate the Second Amendment.

Source stated in previous post.

I think we can all agree that we see results of fraud on this topic... with stars... interesting...

At least we are on conspiracy site... and this being the case... I am not surprised but bit sadden that public does not care about this issues until their life is at stake...

I just noticed the bit about your comment getting stars lol.

So because you said something that got stars, you must be right?

Because four justices "agree" with you, you know more about Constitutional law than I do?

Oh the irony. It's almost too much to handle. So much lulz.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

This is a shooting that happened to be at a university, not a "University Shooting".

So now we get webcrawlers looking for keywords to tie together ends that just aren't there.

Score 1 for fear mongering and gore porn.

You just don't make sense...

Shooting was at uni, both shooter and victims are students... and it's not university shooting??

Seriously?

What in your opinion should be called university shooting??? Please enlighten us.

First, please drop the condescension. Otherwise I will not believe you really are trying to discuss anything here. Enlightenment isn't something you'll find on the internet.

A "University Shooting" is the same as a "School Shooting", except at a university and not a public school. Its during business hours with the intention being to kill students and faculty. It doesn't happen after hours in the parking lot, where disputes commonly happen. The motive isn't "school shooter". The motive is something else.

Or not. I am just speculating using my own common sense and reasoning ability, which if i am being honest, i trust more than just about anyone else. This is not a "University Shooting". Wrong m/o. This is a "dispute resolution shooting". It just happens to be on a university.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Its collectivism vs individualism. The gun debate boils down to this. A lot of debates that divide along party lines do, actually.

If it was a rational debate, the pro lifers would be the ones trying outlaw guns. And the pro choicers would be for increasing all liberty, including the 2nd amendment. But politics isn't meant to be rational...its meant to be divisive.

So here we lay, floating in the cesspool.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You would be correct. The Secret Service defines a school shooting as a mass shooting where a school is specifically selected for attack.

Ergo, a shooting that takes place during an altercation between two people or two groups of people in a parking lot in the middle of the night doesn't meet that criteria.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You misinterpreted my post. I am just bit disappointed that NRA has good ground here, on ATS. It is clear why and how we got to this place, and there is no simple solution out.

I don't believe all guns should be abolished, nor I believe we will see gun being controlled any time soon.

But as I am optimistic that we will find solution to this problem, just like we always do... we will be pressed and school shootings will push us to start acting... and researches I posted will help find issue and solution.

We know that more guns are not making us more safe, on contrary, we are less safe.

We should not have to carry weapon to feel safe in country we live in. It's just absurd to think you should carry gun everywhere.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I stopped reading after the NRA bit. Second time in a week I've either been outright accused of being an NRA member or had the implication leveled at me.

I'm not. Never have been.

I'm just a bit disappointed that ATS seems to have so many members who base the veracity of their opinion off the number of stars they get. So many members who willfully ignore something because it directly contradicts what their own assertions are. So many who have to level personal attacks because their argument is grounded in a weak premise and fallacy.

One question though: how do you suppose you'll get my guns away from me? By sending other men with guns to take them?

Plot twist: I'm one of those "other men with guns" and would not participate in any form of gun grab. And the majority of my coworkers wouldn't either.

ETA - I don't have to carry a gun to feel safe. My 74 year old mother doesn't carry a gun and feels perfectly safe. Maybe you should man up a little?

Have a super day

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Shamrock6

You misinterpreted my post. I am just bit disappointed that NRA has good ground here, on ATS. It is clear why and how we got to this place, and there is no simple solution out.

I don't believe all guns should be abolished, nor I believe we will see gun being controlled any time soon.

But as I am optimistic that we will find solution to this problem, just like we always do... we will be pressed and school shootings will push us to start acting... and researches I posted will help find issue and solution.

We know that more guns are not making us more safe, on contrary, we are less safe.

We should not have to carry weapon to feel safe in country we live in. It's just absurd to think you should carry gun everywhere.

To me what is absurd is continuing to trust the police to protect you, when they admit openly that "protect" is not in their mandate. The police apparatus is politicized like any other government funded apparatus. In just about every large city, policing is done to stats.

Even more absurd is continuing to trust a government that keeps encroaching on our civil liberties with promises of safety and prospertiy, but failing to deliver either.

Personal responsibility....its starts with personal protection.

a reply to: Shamrock6

People willfully ignoring something in this case is evidence that links guns and violence.

I never said you are NRA member, but NRA's misinformation of public can influence your response.

That influence can be seen in posts like this, where everyone avoids arguing about elephant in the room.

At least now I know that I am arguing someone who is clearly not reading what is posted, which explains.

Not sure what you mean by 'man up a little'? Should I get gun to feel like man??

Is that the 'issue' here?

Thanks for explanation...

Also have a nice day...



a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sure, show me good examples how guns help with self control...

Speaking of police force, just idea that they have to protect themselves with amount of gun we know we have today (more then people in USA) in order to protect and server public... there is a good reason police here and in rest of developed world are different things...

I've lived in Europe, and I can tell you that there you can feel safe without gun.

Don't you think that better gun laws would actually help in police/public relation??

At that hour of the morning? 1 of 3 things was going on -- botched drug deal, robbery, or turf war. A school shooting it wasn't, it was just in the immediate area of one.

And I see the thread devolved to gun dry-humping. Some things never change, so much for respect for the victims.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Shamrock6

You misinterpreted my post. I am just bit disappointed that NRA has good ground here, on ATS. It is clear why and how we got to this place, and there is no simple solution out.

I don't believe all guns should be abolished, nor I believe we will see gun being controlled any time soon.

But as I am optimistic that we will find solution to this problem, just like we always do... we will be pressed and school shootings will push us to start acting... and researches I posted will help find issue and solution.

We know that more guns are not making us more safe, on contrary, we are less safe.

We should not have to carry weapon to feel safe in country we live in. It's just absurd to think you should carry gun everywhere.

There were more killings worldwide prior to guns so how does that fit your theory? It's called history.

I don't have to carry anything to feel safe.

Research has been done on what you say, and implemented in many areas, and has proven it does not deter violence.

The "researches" you posted show nothing but biased sources with a skew to the figures. You continue to ignore the ACTUAL research from a government, unbiased source from Australia that shows violent crime did not go down after heavy gun restrictions were put in place. This is from places where what you are wanting has already been implemented.....and it doesn't work. Sure there is less gun death, but knife deaths doubled......wrench meet gears.